Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV

Reply
Thread Tools

Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV

 
 
bolega
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2010
"Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr

Enjoy .....


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Tarver
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2010
On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html
>
> RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986
>
> (Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (Royal Institute of Technology))
> Stockholm, Sweden
>
> Arranged by the student society
> “Datorföreningen Stacken”
> 30 October 1986
>
> [Note: This is a slightly edited transcript of the talk. As such it
> contains false starts, as well as locutions that are natural in spoken
> English but look strange in print. It is not clear how to correct them
> to written English style without ‘doing violence to the original
> speech’.]
>
> It seems that there are three things that people would like me to talk
> about. On the one hand I thought that the best thing to talk about
> here for a club of hackers, was what it was like at the MIT in the old
> days. What made the Artificial Intelligence Lab such a special place.
> But people tell me also that since these are totally different people
> from the ones who were at the conference Monday and Tuesday that I
> ought to talk about what's going on in the GNU project and that I
> should talk about why software and information can not be owned, which
> means three talks in all, and since two of those subjects each took an
> hour it means we're in for a rather long time. So I had the idea that
> perhaps I could split it in to three parts, and people could go
> outside for the parts they are not interested in, and that then when I
> come to the end of a part I can say it's the end and people can go out
> and I can send Jan Rynning out to bring in the other people. (Someone
> else says: “Janne, han trenger ingen mike” (translation: “Janne, he
> doesn't need a mike”)). Jan, are you prepared to go running out to
> fetch the other people? Jmr: I am looking for a microphone, and
> someone tells me it is inside this locked box. Rms: Now in the old
> days at the AI lab we would have taken a sledgehammer and cracked it
> open, and the broken door would be a lesson to whoever had dared to
> lock up something that people needed to use. Luckily however I used to
> study Bulgarian singing, so I have no trouble managing without a
> microphone.
>
> Anyway, should I set up this system to notify you about the parts of
> the talk, or do you just like to sit through all of it? (Answer:
> Yeaaah)
>
> When I started programming, it was 1969, and I did it in an IBM
> laboratory in New York. After that I went to a school with a computer
> science department that was probably like most of them. There were
> some professors that were in charge of what was supposed to be done,
> and there were people who decided who could use what. There was a
> shortage of terminals for most people, but a lot of the professors had
> terminals of their own in their offices, which was wasteful, but
> typical of their attitude. When I visited the Artificial Intelligence
> lab at MIT I found a spirit that was refreshingly different from that.
> For example: there, the terminals was thought of as belonging to
> everyone, and professors locked them up in their offices on pain of
> finding their doors broken down. I was actually shown a cart with a
> big block of iron on it, that had been used to break down the door of
> one professors office, when he had the gall to lock up a terminal.
> There were very few terminals in those days, there was probably
> something like five display terminals for the system, so if one of
> them was locked up, it was a considerable disaster.
>
> In the years that followed I was inspired by that ideas, and many
> times I would climb over ceilings or underneath floors to unlock rooms
> that had machines in them that people needed to use, and I would
> usually leave behind a note explaining to the people that they
> shouldn't be so selfish as to lock the door. The people who locked the
> door were basically considering only themselves. They had a reason of
> course, there was something they thought might get stolen and they
> wanted to lock it up, but they didn't care about the other people they
> were affecting by locking up other things in the same room. Almost
> every time this happened, once I brought it to their attention, that
> it was not up to them alone whether that room should be locked, they
> were able to find a compromise solution: some other place to put the
> things they were worried about, a desk they could lock, another little
> room. But the point is that people usually don't bother to think about
> that. They have the idea: “This room is Mine, I can lock it, to hell
> with everyone else”, and that is exactly the spirit that we must teach
> them not to have.
>
> But this spirit of unlocking doors wasn't an isolated thing, it was
> part of an entire way of life. The hackers at the AI lab were really
> enthusiastic about writing good programs, and interesting programs.
> And it was because they were so eager to get more work done, that they
> wouldn't put up with having the terminals locked up, or lots of other
> things that people could do to obstruct useful work. The differences
> between people with high morale who really care about what they're
> trying to do, and people who think of it as just a job. If it's just a
> job, who cares if the people who hired you are so stupid they make you
> sit and wait, it's their time, their money but not much gets done in a
> place like that, and it's no fun to be in a place like that.
>
> Another thing that we didn't have at the AI lab was file protection.
> There was no security at all on the computer. And we very consciously
> wanted it that way. The hackers who wrote the Incompatible Timesharing
> System decided that file protection was usually used by a self-styled
> system manager to get power over everyone else. They didn't want
> anyone to be able to get power over them that way, so they didn't
> implement that kind of a feature. The result was, that whenever
> something in the system was broken, you could always fix it. You never
> had to sit there in frustration because there was NO WAY, because you
> knew exactly what's wrong, and somebody had decided they didn't trust
> you to do it. You don't have to give up and go home, waiting for
> someone to come in in the morning and fix the system when you know ten
> times as well as he does what needs to be done.
>
> And we didn't let any professors or bosses decide what work was going
> to be done either, because our job was to improve the system! We
> talked to the users of course; if you don't do that you can't tell
> what's needed. But after doing that, we were the ones best able to see
> what kind of improvements were feasible, and we were always talking to
> each other about how we'd like to see the system changed, and what
> sort of neat ideas we'd seen in other systems and might be able to
> use. So the result is that we had a smoothly functioning anarchy, and
> after my experience there, I'm convinced that that is the best way for
> people to live.
>
> Unfortunately the AI lab in that form was destroyed. For many years we
> were afraid the AI lab would be destroyed by another lab at MIT, the
> Lab for Computer Science, whose director was a sort of empire builder
> type, doing everything he could to get himself promoted within MIT,
> and make his organization bigger, and he kept trying to cause the AI
> lab to be made a part of his lab, and nobody wanted to do things his
> way because he believed that people should obey orders and things like
> that.
>
> But that danger we managed to defend against, only to be destroyed by
> something we had never anticipated, and that was commercialism. Around
> the early 80's the hackers suddenly found that there was now
> commercial interest in what they were doing. It was possible to get
> rich by working at a private company. All that was necessary was to
> stop sharing their work with the rest of the world and destroy the MIT-
> AI lab, and this is what they did despite all the efforts I could make
> to prevent them.
>
> Essentially all the competent programmers except for me, at the AI lab
> were hired away, and this caused more than a momentary change, it
> caused a permanent transformation because it broke the continuity of
> the culture of hackers. New hackers were always attracted by the old
> hackers; there were the most fun computers and the people doing the
> most interesting things, and also a spirit which was a great deal of
> fun to be part of. Once these things were gone, there is nothing to
> recommend the place to anyone new, so new people stopped arriving.
> There was no-one they could be inspired by, no-one that they could
> learn those traditions from. In addition no-one to learn how to do
> good programming from. With just a bunch of professors and graduate
> students, who really don't know how to make a program work, you can't
> learn to make good programs work. So the MIT AI lab that I loved is
> gone and after a couple of years of fighting against the people who
> did it to try to punish them for it I decided that I should dedicate
> my self to try to create a new community with that spirit.
>
> But one of the problems I had to face was the problem of proprietary
> software. For example one thing that happened at the lab, after the
> hackers left, was that the machines and the software that we had
> developed could no longer be maintained. The software of course
> worked, and it continued to work if nobody changed it, but the
> machines did not. The machines would break and there would be no-one
> who could fix them and eventually they would be thrown out. In the old
> days, yes we had service contracts for the machines, but it was
> essentially a joke. That was a way of getting parts after the expert
> hackers from the AI lab fixed the problem. Because if you let the
> field-service person fix it it would take them days, and you didn't
> want to do that, you wanted it to work. So, the people who knew how to
> do those things would just go and fix it quickly, and since they were
> ten times as competent as any field service person, they could do a
> much better job. And then they would have the ruined boards, they
> would just leave them there and tell the field service person “take
> these back and bring us some new ones”.
>
> In the real old days our hackers used to modify the
>
> read more »...


Perhaps as an antidote

http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-...bolics-and-lmi

Mark
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2010
On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html

>
> > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986


did you really have to post all of this...

<snip>

> > read more »...


....oh sorry only about a third of it...

> Perhaps as an antidote
>
> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-...about-the-form...


....to add two lines?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Emmy Noether
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2010
On Jul 7, 1:57*pm, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
>
> Enjoy .....


In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
of them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr


1/ Freedom to Run to the Program
2/ Freedom to study the source code, you control it <------ Software
is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that, its like
a
lock
3/ Freedom to help your neightbors, share with them
4/ Freedom to contribute to your community


Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
its like a lock


"to MAKE SURE you get the four freedoms"


He is WRONG !!! He has not made sure. He has not taken the first
steps.


Software architecture must be documented. A model minimal release
must
be given. If it takes too long to document the program by writing in
Latex, then he can write by hand or make an video with camera on the
paper and he can talk.


Mackenzie, bring a properly written documentation by FSF for example
on emacs of gcc. I want to see where RMS got his ideas ? Did he
invent
all of them himself ? Is he giving proper references to the sources
of
the ideas ? Is that plagiarism ?

I am sick of such jews/zionists like RMS, Roman Polansky, Bernard
Madoff, Larry Ellison (he had to pay 100K in court to a chinese girl
he screwed), Stephen Wolfram, Albert Einstein spreading anti-semitism
by their flagrant unethical behaviour.


If you use someone else's ideas, give reference. Dont try to portray
yourself falsely as a genius by hiding sources and weaving rosy false
pictures of being a victim or born out of wedlock. you went to school
and got good education. you got insights from your community and good
mentorship from other jews in aggressive networking in the jews like
other communities dont have.


These are facts. Thats why these people dont stand to scrutiny and
questioning.



> > Emacs uses BZR, not SVN, and has
> > done since the beginning of 2010.


> Thanks for your correction. Updated my site.




Write a good documentation using pencil and scan that helps newbies
enter the field.

If it is not there, you will be subject of perpetual criticism and no
thanks.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Kastrup
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2010
Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> On Jul 7, 1:57*pm, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "Democracy is sick in the US, government monitors your Internet"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
>>
>> Enjoy .....

>
> In this video, Stall man makes 4 promises to public but stalls on 2nd
> of them.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfCJq_zIdk&feature=fvsr
>
>
> 1/ Freedom to Run to the Program
> 2/ Freedom to study the source code, you control it <------ Software
> is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that, its like
> a
> lock
> 3/ Freedom to help your neightbors, share with them
> 4/ Freedom to contribute to your community
>
>
> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
> its like a lock


There is no unfreedom involved here. Freedom does not hand you a free
ride. Only a free road.

--
David Kastrup
 
Reply With Quote
 
Emmy Noether
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2010
On Jul 17, 2:49*pm, Cor Gest <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)


>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
>>> its like a lock


>> There is no unfreedom involved here. *Freedom does not hand you a free
>> ride. *Only a free road.


No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough. If RMS used
other
people's free roads (gnu is not the first free thing. the first free
thing is
what he got at AI labs at TAX Payer money. I read his interview where
he said
that the hackers would break into professor's offices. Perhaps we do
the same
to him and break into his FSF office and leave a "friend" note we came
to get
the docs he has not released.) which has proper signs, proper
references, and
he could ask profs proper questions, and get straight answers, he must
do the
same in return.

The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.
Perhaps, next time
when he is sick he take his DNA code and parse it using bison.

Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
boys from his
mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager and he can put
the volunteers
to the task of documenting, illuminating and revealing the operation
of his softwares
and its evolution.

He owes it to others [just like he got for free , I bet ya he could
never afford any of his machines on his own money at that time when
they were so rare so it must be public money. Even a company like IBM
gets public funding. Its all issue of ethics, not of free software.
Its issue of two way road. Or else our society would die. People all
away in Africa are beginning to agitate from the theft of their
resources and evolutionary time by europeans led by jews and so you
gotta give them back by fully disclosing technologies. I know you can
bribe say a big player like india. We dont want anti-semitism to
spread and want the same ethical requirements for everyone.] to
describe the algorithms used, references, or else, describe them if he
dont want to give references. He need to give priorty to the past
undocumented tools. Automatically, more volunteers will come. Right
now, the mistrust of Richard Stall man and FSF is growing everywhere.
Strength of my arguments stand on their validity.

I repeat, no one wants a free ride. We want a free road that you
seemed to offer. But we dont want a free puzzle. Or else, ask him to
decode his own DNA alone in reasonable time. Its nothing but a code.

> You know, nowdadys many 'people' are used to get everything on a platter
> any mental incovieniences are circumvented as much as possible, so is
> any try for independent thinking about anything strongly dissuaded.
>
> The last 25 years, since click-tah-icon-software emerged
> "the dumbing down of programming" [1] has been on a rampage.
>
> [1]http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/05/cov_12feature.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Emmy Noether
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
The XEMACS programmers have documented in writing that Richard
Matthews Stallman asked them to explain every single line of code.

They got exasperated and would explain him blocks.

I suspect that they were playing the same game as him - perhaps giving
him the same medicine.

If he was NEEDY of an explanation of every single line, isn't it
UTTERLY SHAMELESS of him to deny others similar information and give
them such a puzzle ?

We have the right to tell the people what it really is all about.

By writing the GNU license, he eliminated the competition only from
those one-in-a-million who were persistent enough to read his code and
figure it out.

This is because by not documenting and describing his softwares, he
ensured that there is little chance that the multitude would be able
to take the code and do anything with it.

But by writing the GNU license, he made sure that those few who can
understand it cant take it away and build on it.

An new type of license is needed that requires concurrent
documentation with each release, even if hand-written. Scans can be
put together in a pdf and diagrams drawn with hand.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rui Maciel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Emmy Noether wrote:

<snip nonsense/>
> Mackenzie, bring a properly written documentation by FSF for example
> on emacs of gcc. I want to see where RMS got his ideas ? Did he
> invent
> all of them himself ? Is he giving proper references to the sources
> of
> the ideas ? Is that plagiarism ?
>
> I am sick of such jews/zionists like RMS, Roman Polansky, Bernard
> Madoff, Larry Ellison (he had to pay 100K in court to a chinese girl
> he screwed), Stephen Wolfram, Albert Einstein spreading anti-semitism
> by their flagrant unethical behaviour.

<snip more nonsense/>

You are a lousy troll.


Rui Maciel
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, Nick Keighley wrote:

> On 16 July, 09:24, Mark Tarver <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 15 July, 23:21, bolega <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html

>>
>> > RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986

>
> did you really have to post all of this...
>
> <snip>
>
>> > read more »...

>
> ...oh sorry only about a third of it...


Still totally unnecessary, though.

>> Perhaps as an antidote
>>
>> http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-...bolics-and-lmi


In other words, software that was developed at Symbolics was not given
way for free to LMI. Is that so surprising?

Which is conceding Stallman’s point.

Anyway, that wasn’t Symbolics’s “plan”; it was part of the MIT licensing
agreement, the very same one that LMI signed. LMI’s changes were all
proprietary to LMI, too.

I don’t understand this bit. The only “MIT licensing agreement” I’m aware
off _allows_ you to redistribute your copies without the source, but doesn’t
_require_ it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Kastrup
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2010
Emmy Noether <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>> Some entity, AKA David Kastrup <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
>> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

>
>>>> Software is a puzzle and it must be explained to be able to do that,
>>>> its like a lock

>
>>> There is no unfreedom involved here. *Freedom does not hand you a free
>>> ride. *Only a free road.

>
> No one asks for a free ride. A free road is good enough.


Obviously you don't understand what you are talking about.

> Perhaps we do the same to him and break into his FSF office and leave
> a "friend" note we came to get the docs he has not released.


You can't "get" anything that has not been written.

> The concise answer: We want a free road but not a free puzzle.


You have the freedom to walk the forest you perceive. You have the
freedom to build the road that you want, in that forest.

If it is a puzzle to you, that is your own problem. It is not a puzzle
because somebody would have cut a whole into pieces and scattered them
around. It is a puzzle because nobody put it together yet.

Feel free to do so, doing others the service you want done.

> Now, dont run away from this argument and bring each and every of the
> boys from his mailing list to tackle this question. He is a manager
> and he can put the volunteers to the task of documenting, illuminating
> and revealing the operation of his softwares and its evolution.


You want a free ride, very obviously.

> He owes it to others


And you think your whining entitles you to it.

What did you ever do to _deserve_ others working for you?

--
David Kastrup
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV bolega Python 23 08-05-2010 02:26 PM
Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV bolega C Programming 1 07-16-2010 03:11 AM
Fascinating interview by Richard Stallman on Russia TV bolega Python 1 07-16-2010 03:11 AM
Richard Stallman on Kim Hill Sat 9th Aug Adam NZ Computing 8 08-09-2008 12:12 PM
The Fascinating Nessuno George Orwell Computer Support 1 03-23-2008 02:34 PM



Advertisments